Libby Davies

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 22nd, 2007]

With respect to Insite, the Safe Injection Site (SIS): (a) what studies and evaluations about safe injection sites have been undertaken, requested or commissioned by Health Canada; (b) what individuals, what department or what organization undertook these studies; (c) what is the cost of these studies; (d) what are the findings and recommendations of these studies; (e) what recommendations does the government agree with; (f) what studies and evaluations have been requested or commissioned by Health Canada to be undertaken before December 31, 2007; (g) what Heath Canada studies, reports and recommendations have already been presented to the government prior to September 2006; and (h) what amount of funding has the government provided directly, or indirectly, to SIS?

[Petitions, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise in the House today to present a petition like that mentioned by the member for Burnaby—Douglas, because we have worked together on this issue, and to note that it has been more than five years since 21 year old Amanda Wei Zhao was murdered in Burnaby, yet still her family in China is waiting for justice as the accused, Ang Li, returned to China before charges were laid.

There is deep concern in the community as evidenced by the over 1,000 petitions that have been signed about this case. Clearly, members of the community and ourselves call on the Government of Canada to work with relevant Chinese authorities to ensure that at long last a process of justice begin for the Zhao family and that the government work with the family to ensure it receives support and access to information about their daughter's murder investigation. We call on the Government of Canada to monitor this and to make sure that justice is done.

[Petitions, November 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls for the just and honourable redress for Chinese head tax payers. It points out very strongly that all Chinese head tax families without a surviving head tax payer or spouse deserve appropriate redress with respect and dignity. The petition supports the call for redress based on one certificate, one claim and calls upon the Prime Minister and Parliament to negotiate in good faith with the legal successors for a just and proper settlement.

[Petitions, November 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present two petitions.

The first petition is signed by people who note that the federal minimum wage was eliminated in 1996 under the Liberal government and that a $10 an hour minimum wage just approaches the poverty level for a single worker. The petition calls on the Parliament of Canada to ensure that workers in the federal jurisdiction are paid a fair minimum wage by passing Bill C-375, as presented by the member for Parkdale—High Park.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 16th, 2007]

With respect to women working as prostitutes: (a) does the government have statistics on women working as prostitutes who have gone missing or have been murdered and, if so, how many have gone missing in Canada since 1999, and how many have been murdered in Canada since 2003; (b) what studies and reports have been carried out by the Department of Justice in relation to Canada's prostitution laws since 1999, and what are their findings and recommendations; (c) what recommendations from the Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws, as enumerated in the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of the First Session of the 39th Parliament, does the government agree with; and (d) how much federal funding is allocated to programs and organizations that deliver exit strategies for women working in the sex trade and (i) what are those organizations, (ii) how much money do they receive per year?

[Business of the House, November 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as part of the Thursday question, I would like an assurance from the government House leader that there will be adequate time for the committees to study the estimates, and the estimates will not be brought back to the House that will preclude the committees from doing that work, because there has been some suggestion that might happen.

The supply cycle goes to December 10, but we would like an assurance that the committees will be able to go through the estimates before the main supplementary estimates are brought back to the House.

[Public Safety, November 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have been calling for a full review of the use of tasers since 2004, shortly after their implication in the deaths of two people who lived in my riding of Vancouver East.

We learned yesterday that after only 30 seconds on the scene at the Vancouver airport, the RCMP tasered Mr. Dziekanski at least twice, with charges of 50,000 volts. Moments later, he was dead.

In too many instances, tasers are being used on the homeless, people with mental health problems or drug use problems and essentially the most marginalized people in our communities.

There are no clear national standards for the use of tasers and little understanding of their impact. Two more men died in Quebec after being tasered earlier this year. We cannot wait for one more victim before action is taken.

Until strict standards are in place, until we can know that tasers are safe and until we can be sure that tasers are being used properly, they should not be in use. We call for a full and comprehensive review of the use of tasers.

[Canada Elections Act, November 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan for giving such a good overview of the current legislation before us, Bill C-18, as well as its predecessor, Bill C-31 which was approved by this House.

I want to emphasize the points she made. The original bill, Bill C-31, was actually a bill that did not need to come forward. It was a bill that was manufactured by the government based on alleged voter fraud that really does not exist.

There are isolated cases from time to time but the chief electoral officer and Elections Canada have a very good system for following that up and actually zeroing in on where there may be potential fraud.

Therefore, this bill, in its previous form, was never required in the first place. What it did was it disenfranchised millions of rural voters, as well as those who live in an urban environment who may not have the necessary ID. There was nothing wrong with the way people in my riding of Vancouver East voted but they were suddenly disenfranchised by Bill C-31, as they will be by this new bill.

It is quite astounding that a problem that never existed has now become a problem because of legislation that has been created by the government.

We know about the rural voters and the fact that is why this new version of the bill has come forward, but is it also not the case that there are other voters who will be disenfranchised? Unfortunately, there is nothing in this bill that will correct the situation for those people. They are mostly people in inner cities, homeless people, people without ID and who have every right to vote. As a result of this legislation, they will still find it difficult to vote, if not impossible. They will, in effect, be disenfranchised.

I know I and my colleagues have pressed very hard to get this message through. It is quite alarming that not only did the government not listen, but the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois rejected those arguments as well and went along with this bill. Now we have the second version of the bill back and it is still a flawed bill.

I would ask the member to comment on how this impacts people in the urban environment as well.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, November 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-423. When the bill first came forward in the last session of Parliament, I spoke to it as well. I would like to thank the hon. member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont for reintroducing his bill and quoting back to us what we said the first time around. I guess he looked it up in Hansard. I will try not to repeat what I said then.

I want to thank the member for bringing forward the bill. It has been brought forward with good intentions. It has been brought forward on the basis that we need to have diversion programs. When young people become involved in the criminal justice system, it can become very divisive and very costly. The outcome is often more negative and has a greater impact not only on the individual involved, but on society as a whole. The principle of diversion particularly for issues related primarily to health, such as addiction or mental health issues, is a very important and positive thing.

I certainly want to echo the comments of my colleague from the Bloc and the Liberal members who spoke as well. However, we do need to see this bill in the larger context of what is taking place. While I support the measures put forward in the bill as something that could be a step in the right direction, unfortunately, the member is part of the government caucus that is taking a giant step in the wrong direction when it comes to dealing with drug issues.

The Conservative government recently unveiled its so-called anti-drug strategy. There are many, many people across the country who are incredibly disturbed and alarmed at the fact that the Conservative government has dropped the whole notion of harm reduction from its anti-drug strategy. In fact, the government is focusing on more enforcement and supposedly on prevention, education and treatment.

When we look at the strategy which was unveiled a couple of months ago, it is $64 million over two years, which anyone in this Parliament would know is a very small amount of money. I think it is $10 million of the $64 million that is earmarked supposedly for education. That is a very, very small contribution from the federal government in terms of what actually needs to be done to provide important education and prevention programs, particularly for young people across the country.

I am very concerned that while on the one hand we have this small initiative from one member of the government, it is going to be completely overshadowed and obliterated by a huge initiative that is under way from the Conservative government that is focused almost exclusively on addressing substance use issues, specifically issues around drug use from a law enforcement point of view.

As the member from the Bloc pointed out, and we were on the same special committee on the non-medical use of drugs, we learned from the Auditor General that 95% of federal funds related to drug use are actually earmarked toward enforcement. The Auditor General questioned in her audit what was the effectiveness of those funds and what were the outcomes in terms of improving the health and safety both of individuals and of local communities which have been impacted by this issue.

I have to be very frank and say that I saw nothing in the federal strategy that was just unveiled that moves us in a different direction. In fact, it is reinforcing this direction of a law enforcement model. It worries me deeply that the Conservative government is basically copying the U.S. war on drugs, which has been a huge failure financially, politically and socially. Locking people up in jail and chasing more and more dollars through enforcement is not the answer. It is a failed model. People understand that, and yet this is what the government has now embarked upon.

In doing so, it is dropping a very successful principle and a set of programs in Canada that revolve around harm reduction. They revolve around being realistic, having a common-sense approach to dealing with substance use, focusing on the well-being of individuals, and improving the health status of people and getting people to a point where they can make healthy choices.

I believe that the bill before us today may assist us in doing this. That is why I think it is very worthy of support, but I feel that it is going to be completely overshadowed by this other strategy in which the money is going in a completely opposite direction.

In my riding of Vancouver East, substance use and the drug issue concern many people. We have seen the visibility of drug use in our local communities. We have taken very important measures. In fact, we had to fight tooth and nail to get programs up and running, such as the heroin prescription trials, and Insite, the safe injection facility, and other harm reduction programs, but they have very strong support in the local community. They have support from the local police department, the city council and the business associations, because people recognize that to rely on enforcement just simply does not work and does not actually change what is going on in those local communities.

Locking up drug users and throwing away the key is not the answer to dealing with substance use issues, yet Insite, the safe injection facility in the downtown east side, is very much under threat of closure. Why? Because it appears that the Conservative government is hell bent on what is really an ideological program. I see this as our biggest problem.

Unfortunately, the government has committed itself and has boxed itself into this ideological position that law enforcement is the primary answer to substance use and drug use. That is what the government wants to push. That is what the government thinks is going to get it votes and support, but I think it is really an old game that is being played out, because we do know that people are fearful of drug use, particularly when their children and youths are involved in experimenting with drugs.

As for the idea that we turn young people into criminals, the idea that we use enforcement as this heavy-handed tool and it somehow is going to solve the problem, I think it has been shown to be a failure. Yet this is the direction that the government is taking.

In speaking to this bill today, I want to be very clear on the record that we reject this larger strategy that the government has adopted and seems to be moving forward on very rapidly. We should be standing courageously to support the kinds of programs that have worked in this country and that Canada has become known for around the world.

I know many of the front line workers and organizations in Vancouver who work very closely with drug users, with youth and youth at risk on the streets and with youth who are facing addiction issues and mental health issues. I can tell members that they know from years of experience that relying on enforcement tools and not having a balanced, comprehensive approach is not going to work.

I want to call on members of the House to stand up and support the need to have harm reduction continue in this country. In fact, I have called for a network of MPs who might be interested in such a proposition, to show that there is very broad support from MPs, community groups, professionals, academia, health care professionals and certainly from users themselves to make sure that harm reduction programs and the emphasis on public health and on dealing with this as a health issue is at the top of the agenda, not pushed down to the bottom of the agenda.

The bill is worthy of going to committee, but let us be aware of the serious dangers that lie ahead with the Conservative government's anti-drug strategy. Let us be aware that it will penalize people and it will target people. It is a failure and we should stop it from happening.

[Points of Order, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly on this point of order.

First of all, it is regrettable that we are put in this position where we are appealing to you to make a decision on where this supply day will go today. Unfortunately, the two parties could not come to an agreement, so we are now coming before the Speaker for a fair decision on this question and we appreciate that you are giving this consideration.

You will know that the NDP submitted a lengthy letter to you dated November 1 where we put forward our arguments, and I certainly appreciate the arguments put forward by my colleague, the House leader from the Bloc. I appreciate its position and understand that it wishes to have a supply day today, but we believe that there are some very serious arguments that would see the Speaker rule in favour of the NDP having its opposition day today.

The Bloc has based its argument mostly on the mathematics of representation in the House. Our contention is, first of all, that all parties should share in the loss of supply days that was caused by the session being shortened by prorogation, as long as there is not an unreasonable result. We believe that the contention by the Bloc that only the Liberals and the NDP should lose an opposition day is not fair, nor is it correct.

Its argument rests mostly on the math involved in terms of representation, and it is claiming that the fourth allotted supply day in the cycle rests on the fact that it is 0.1 over the threshold for a supply day, while saying on the reverse that the NDP should not be allotted a supply day because we are 0.08 below the threshold. You can see, Mr. Speaker, that mathematically, there is virtually no difference on that basis.

I do want to put forward that we do not believe that the issue of math or representation is the only issue that you should be deciding this upon. There is certainly a question here of fairness to small parties and in fact, as the Bloc itself has pointed out to you and we have in our letter, under M and M, page 725, it deals with the criteria that guides the Speaker in choosing a motion under Standing Order 81.1(4)(b). There is no question that it includes fair play toward smaller parties.

On that point, I would like to argue that we should examine what fair play to smaller parties has meant in terms of the practice of the business of this House. I would argue that, for example, in speaking rotations, it is very clear that fairness is provided to all parties. For example, on the opening rounds, it treats each party as equal and is a very good example where consideration is given to ensure that every party has an equal standing.

Second, we can look at the way question period works. Again, even though there is a rough proportion of questions being allocated to parties based on their numbers in the House, it is also based on the fact that there is a rotation that ensures that each party gets fair play and coverage, particularly in the opening round.

I would also submit, Mr. Speaker, that your own decision about how you ensure that there is at least a single question per week that is allotted to an independent member of the House is based upon the same principle of ensuring that there is a sense of fair play in the House and ensuring that independent members can be heard.

Again we can look at the way the allocation of financial resources is made to each party. It is based on the standing that each has in the House, but one of the criteria is also the recognition that smaller parties need a certain base level of funding to be able to function, regardless of the numbers that the party may have in the House, so even the allocation of financial resources is based on this very important principle and criteria of fairness to smaller parties.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to rule on this matter and consider not only the mathematical question, but also the important question of fairness to smaller parties.

I believe the request we have to ensure that there is a minimum of one allotted day per cycle, per party, is not unreasonable. In fact, it is very reasonable, and it is based on a proposal that each party in the House should have an expectation that its members can debate on at least one occasion per cycle an opposition day.

Mr. Speaker, if you rule in favour of the Bloc today the NDP will lose that opportunity on what is basically a very narrow mathematical argument that we think does not do justice to fair play in the House. We ask you to consider these arguments and to rule in favour of the NDP for the motion placed before the House today.